A general topic on "what started it all..."

[Kyuuketsuki]

You asked, "If there was actually a method for assessing Scriptures and that method were consistent, would we not expect consistent interpretations/answers?" You said that you would, and I would too. One method consistently adhered to should give us consistent results. The reason we don't have consistent results is because there is not "a method" (singular) for interpretting Scriptures; there are several methods. Some are academically faulty, or logically invalid, or outright retarded, but that does nothing to the fact that they exist and people use them. (For example, the methods for assessing Scriptures used by the Jehovah's Witnesses were developed by people who admitted under oath in a court of law that they could not speak the ancient languages, could not read them, could not identify basic letters from their alphabets, and had no familiarity with their grammatical rules). There are several methodologies out there—and many of them are horribly faulty—which is why we have inconsistent interpretations.

In which case, since there is no consistency, it would be a more valid explanation to say that there is no consensus therefore no value in scriptural research (except, of course, an an historical source, a method for better understanding the way our ancestors thought and lived).

Kyu

[Ryft]

In which case, since there is no consistency, it would be a more valid explanation to say that there is no consensus therefore no value in scriptural research

It follows from this reasoning that the existence of differing scientific methods which lead to inconsistent results means there is no consensus and, therefore, no value in scientific research. For there surely are different scientific methods, including (as my post was candid enough to admit) really bad ones. Now we shall observe whether your response commits a No True Scotsman fallacy ("those aren't really scientific methods"), or a Special Pleading fallacy ("my criticism applies only to religious issues"), or honestly admits that, although some people use bad methodologies they think are scientific, it has no bearing on the value of scientific research—the same way bad scriptural methods have no bearing on scriptural research.

[Dotard]

Question for Arcanus;

Out of all the differing methods for interpreting what goat herders wrote 3000 years ago (The Bible) what make one any more valid than the next? What makes one 'bad' theology and another 'good' theology?

I've been wanting to get involved in this thread. I guess that's a good a place as any to start.

[Anto Kennedy]

Because we can't have 'nothing'. Where would 'nothing' be? By very definition 'nothing' is the absence of all existence and so cannot in itself exist.

Therefore, 'something' must exist and it must have existed for all time, because without 'something' time has no meaning and therefore cannot exist either.

There shalt not be nothing. The Holy Spirit, you got it spot on.

What happens when nothingness annihilates itself? What were we taught in maths class? two negatives make a positive.

zero divided by zero, zero multiplied by zero.

What happens when an infinite nothingness nullifies it's own non-existence in a single moment of sacrifice? A big bang is what. And that fire, that Great Fire that creates, is God.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What happens when an infinite nothingness nullifies it's own non-existence in a single moment of sacrifice? A big bang is what. And that fire, that Great Fire that creates, is God.

And if I may say, that's a pretty [expletive deleted] excuse for an explanation!

Kyu

[Ryft]

What makes one [interpretation] 'bad' theology and another 'good' theology?

There are a vast number of things that can produce such dichotomy, which can occur at any level. Your question, practically speaking, is too broad to answer. There are simply too many things involved when it comes to interpretation: the history and origins of the text; the historical and cultural backgrounds of the authors, the text, and the original audience; the classification of the types of literary genre present in the text; analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself; and so on it goes. Textual exegesis is a complex of serious disciplines, for which there is much introductory material: Bock and Fanning, Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis; Bruce Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture; Kaiser and Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning; William Klein et al, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation; etc.